Democrats: Stop Bro-ing Out With Young Male Voters & Fight for Young Women

5.28.26

Quick hits: Congratulations, Colorado!; Missouri Launches “Stop the Ban”; Anti-Abortion Glossary: “Sex-Rejecting”; In the States: New Jersey, Michigan, Florida, Ohio & More; WTF, Washington Post?; Ballot Box: Gretchen Whitmer, Katie Hobbs, and Young Male Voters; In the Nation: Trump is Sending the DOJ After E. Jean Carroll

---

Congratulations, Colorado!

Colorado college students will now be able to get their abortions on campus, thanks to a law signed just yesterday by Gov. Jared Polis. Come the Fall semester, any public or private college with a health center must provide access to abortion pills, and any college with a campus pharmacy must stock the medication. (Schools without pharmacies can have providers write a prescription to be filled somewhere else.)

With abortion medication under constant attack—and young people often facing the biggest hurdles to care—this legislation is a huge deal. It’s also not the only one of its kind; since the end of Roe, we’ve seen similar laws get passed in California, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts.

As you can imagine, conservatives are not happy about this new spate of bills making abortion pills more available to young people. That’s not only because of their opposition to abortion, but because they’re hoping to convince the next generation of young women to forgo college altogether for early marriage and motherhood.

Luckily, Colorado isn’t having any of it. Huge thanks to all of the advocates who worked so hard to make this law happen—you’re awesome.

Missouri Launches “Stop the Ban”

Missouri advocates have officially launched their campaign to oppose the abortion ban on November’s ballot. “Stop the Ban” is a coalition of abortion rights groups—from Planned Parenthood affiliates and the local ACLU to Abortion Action Missouri and others.

As you likely remember, Missouri voters passed abortion protections in 2024, and Republicans have fought them every single day since—relying on unconstitutional restrictions and endless court battles to defy the will of the people. Now they’re putting abortion back on the ballot, hoping to trick voters into codifying a near-total abortion ban.

Trick how? Well, Republicans call their ban “Amendment 3”—the exact same name as the pro-choice measure voters approved in 2024. The anti-abortion group backing the amendment is also trying to sound as feminist as possible: they call themselves, “Her Health, Her Future.”

But Republicans aren’t relying on trickery alone. Since they know abortion rights are popular, they’ve bundled their ban with an attack on gender-affirming care for minors—hoping that maybe anti-trans bigotry will win over voters. (Their campaign signs literally read: “Yes on 3 Ban Transgender Surgeries for Minors.”)

If Republicans’ version of “Amendment 3” passes, abortion would only be legal in medical emergencies and for sexual violence victims early in pregnancy.

From Tori Schafer, a spokesperson for Stop the Ban and an attorney with the ACLU of Missouri:

“And we need to educate voters about the bottom line, and the bottom line here is clear: The new amendment 3 is an abortion ban that takes away a woman’s right to make her own medical decisions and instead puts it in the hands of politicians and lawyers.”

Watch Stop the Ban’s first ad below:

Anti-Abortion Glossary: “Sex-Rejecting”

Believe it or not, “sex rejecting” is not some new incel lingo. It’s actually the latest in anti-trans messaging.

I first clocked the term this week in the Christian Post, when the conservative news outlet ran a headline declaring, “Nearly 80% of Planned Parenthood clinics offer ‘sex-rejecting procedures’.”

The “sex-rejecting procedures” they’re referring to? Hormone therapy and referrals.

The term comes from the American College of Pediatricians (ACP)—a well-known anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ organization that’s been designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The group released a ‘report’ this week attacking Planned Parenthood because it provides gender-affirming care. ACP, eager to capitalize on the anti-trans / parental rights panic, even claims that “in some locations, patients receiving these procedures and services are as young as 16 years of age.” (The linked footnote leads to a single New York affiliate that provides hormone therapy to those 16 years-old and older, with parental consent.)

If I had to guess, I’d say that “sex-rejecting” has a pretty small chance of catching on—in part because it does sound so much like something you’d find on a weirdo subreddit. But consider this your regular reminder that powerful conservative groups are constantly throwing new language at the wall to see what sticks. It wouldn’t be the worst idea for our side to try the same now and then.

In the States: New Jersey, Michigan, Florida, Ohio & More

New Jersey lawmakers just approved legislation that will protect patients seeking abortion and gender-affirming care. And I’ve to say, I love these happy pictures published by the New Jersey Monitor. 🫶

In addition to protecting providers and patients from out-of-state prosecution and civil suits, this legislation makes it a crime to interfere with patients seeking care. As you can imagine, anti-abortion activists are seriously pissed off; they say the law will make it impossible for them to “counsel” patients outside of clinics.

The bill comes at the same time that conservative organizations are bringing legal challenges against buffer zones in various states—claiming that they violate clinic harassers’ First Amendment rights.

The New Jersey Assembly now needs to approve the legislation before it’s sent for Gov. Mikie Sherrill’s signature.

Meanwhile, Michigan’s abortion protections will remain in place despite the best efforts of Right to Life of Michigan. The group has been trying to repeal the constitutional amendment that voters passed in 2022, arguing that it “threatens parental rights.”

This is the same exact argument conservatives used in the lead up to that 2022 vote—claiming that if the amendment were to pass, parental consent in Michigan would be eradicated. That didn’t happen (unfortunately), which sort of puts a dent in their argument.

The ruling from a federal appeals court this week, however, didn’t address that issue. The court simply ruled that the anti-abortion group didn’t have standing to bring a challenge in the first place. In response to the ruling, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel called the suit “procedurally flawed, meritless, and politically motivated.”

“Although a loud faction remains determined to undermine bodily autonomy, the Michigan Constitution guarantees that decisions about your health belong to you,” Nessel said.

While Michigan’s AG is working to protect reproductive rights, the Miami Herald warns that Florida’s attorney general is hellbent on attacking it. Editorial board member Isadora Rangel predicts that AG James Uthmeier is making surrogacy “the next culture war” in an attempt to codify fetal personhood and further restrict abortion.

Essentially, Uthmeier has inserted himself in a local surrogacy case. He argues surrogacy violates the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on slavery—relying on the notion that fertilized eggs are human beings.

“The bigger problem is that if the courts consider a fetus a person, then our ‘legal landscape would change dramatically,’ [law professor Caroline Mala] Corbin said. Abortion could be considered murder, and women could fall under ‘intensive surveillance’ of what they do during pregnancy, she added. Say an expecting mother eats raw fish, which doctors strongly advise against during pregnancy, and contracts salmonella — would she find herself in legal crosshairs?”

It may sound like a reach, Rangel writes—but so did the end of Roe at one point.

For more on fetal personhood, consider revisiting my conversation with law professor Mary Ziegler:

Everything You Need to Know About Fetal Personhood

Finally, let’s talk about Ohio—where the conservative Center for Christian Virtue (CCV) is demanding that federal attorneys enforce the Comstock Act. The group wants prosecutors to investigate anyone who ships abortion pills into or out of the state, work with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service to “document violations of the Comstock Act,” and pursue prosecutions.

The move comes in the wake of a broader attack on abortion pills. As you probably remember, a federal ruling on telemedicine abortion threw the country into chaos before the Supreme Court stepped in to pause it. (Unfortunately, their decision wasn’t a resolution—just a delay.)

Speaking of CCV, NPR has an interesting profile out today that digs into the group and the lawmakers they work with. It’s a useful reminder that anti-abortion organizations have a broad range of interests—from attacking DEI initiatives to lobbying for bills that would require schools to teach the “positive impact of Judeo-Christian values in U.S. history.”

Quick hits:

• A former Republican strategist has filed to run for Illinois governor as an Independent;

• A Kentucky man has been arrested for attempted fetal homicide, accused of replacing his girlfriends regular medication with “an unknown substance”;

• And Missouri lawmakers are considering a bill that would expand tax credits for donations to crisis pregnancy centers.

WTF, Washington Post?

This really pissed me off today: a new ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll asked Americans what they “dislike most” about each party—and the Washington Post published a graph suggesting that abortion is the top reason voters dislike Democrats:

Given how incredibly popular abortion rights are, I didn’t buy it. So I went to the actual poll numbers. Sure enough: only 6% of respondents cited abortion—lumped together, absurdly, with “race, gender, crime positions, too woke”—as a reason to dislike Democrats. Meanwhile, “weak/spineless/don’t stand up against Trump or for what’s right” was cited by 10% of respondents. Yet that reason appears below abortion on the Post’s graph!

How could they possibly defend that? Well, it appears the Post combined the abortion category with another listed reason to dislike Democrats—“too liberal,” which also got 6%. In other words, reporters smooshed two separate data points together, artificially inflating opposition to abortion rights.

ABC News published an image that’s far more accurate, with the actual percentages in the graph, and the issues in the right order.

And listen, I know I can be nit-picky about mainstream media coverage—but this stuff matters. The Washington Post is read by the people who shape elections: from campaign donors and legislators to Beltway consultants. When those people see a graph implying Democrats are losing voters over abortion rights, it’s a big deal.

Ballot Box: Gretchen Whitmer, Katie Hobbs, and Young Male Voters

Just hours after saying she wouldn’t be running for president in 2028, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer appeared to backtrack—telling reporters, “never say never.”

Earlier today, the Democratic governor told Fox 2 Detroit, “There will be a robust group of people running for president, I will not be one of them in 2028.” But at a conference a few hours later, Whitmer said she wanted “to correct the record.”

“You know, I never thought I would run for governor. So I guess I should know better…never say never. But I don’t want any distractions as I wrap up my eight years as governor.”

Interesting.

Meanwhile, Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs has launched her reelection campaign, centered on lowering costs for working families and reminding voters of her working class roots. It’s worth remembering just how strong a pro-choice governor she’s been: before Arizona voters passed abortion protections in 2024, Hobbs transferred prosecution authority over abortion exclusively to Attorney General Kris Mayes—a deliberate move to keep cases away from overzealous local DAs and in the hands of a pro-choice AG she knew had no interest in targeting abortion-related “crimes.”

Last up—let’s talk about the political gender gap. The New York Times has a piece today about Democrats’ attempts to woo young male voters; it’s worth a read. I think the reporters did a good job of hinting at the point they clearly wanted to make: that too many young men want the regressive male privilege that their fathers and grandfathers enjoyed.

Shauna Daly, of the (liberal) Speaking with American Men project, told the Times that Democrats need to put forward an alternative vision and challenge the appeal of “turning back the clock.”

But I also really appreciated this thought:

“Richard Reeves, the president of the American Institute for Boys and Men, a left-leaning research institute, said he was exasperated with people assuming that all young men had suddenly become fervent Trump supporters or Andrew Tate-style misogynists. ‘Maybe,’ Mr. Reeves said, ‘they’re actually really swingy and up for grabs.’”

I really hope that’s right. But I also have a different take entirely: rather than trying to bro out with young men, I think Democrats should be doubling down on young women. In a moment when conservative donors are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to convince the next generation of girls that the loss of their rights is aspirational, we can’t afford to take that support for granted.

We Need to Talk About the Pink-Pill Pipeline

In the Nation: Trump is Sending the DOJ After E. Jean Carroll

This is just disgusting: our adjudicated rapist president is weaponizing the Department of Justice to investigate and terrorize E. Jean Carroll.

A jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll in 2023, awarding her $5 million damages. And in 2024, a jury ruled that the president had to pay Carroll $83 million in damages for repeatedly defaming her. (Unfortunately, that payout has been delayed by the courts.)

CNN reports that the DOJ is looking at Carroll for perjury, based on comments she made about not getting outside funding for her lawsuit. You read the details there and at NBC, but we all know what this is really about. Trump hates all women, but he especially hates women who beat him.

This investigation is just the latest in Trump’s long line of revenge investigations and prosecutions. It’s obscene. I hope Carroll knows we’re all sending her virtual support and are furious on her behalf.

Quick hits:

• The Guardian has more on the study that shows abortion bans are restricting access to miscarriage care;

• Pew reports that Americans who regularly attend church are more likely to hear negative messages about abortion from their clergy;

• And op-ed at The Hill points out the hypocrisy of Moms.gov.